Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the policies and regulations resulting from the President's health care law are among the most overreaching added to the U.S. Code in modern history. Further, the President himself has said that his law's individual mandate is not a tax; yet he is now rallying behind the Supreme Court ruling that defined this requirement as just that, a tax.

Look, I have little confidence that this far-reaching law would have ever advanced had the White House and congressional Democrats united behind a tax mandate on every single American citizen.

Let's be clear: the Supreme Court ruled that this law is allowable, not that it's good policy, nor that it will improve the delivery of care. This law is bad for patients and providers, it's bad for individuals and employers, and it's bad for States and jobs. This repeal will allow Americans to receive the care they need from the doctors they choose at a cost they can afford. It's that simple.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 379 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would limit the printing of paper copies of the U.S. Code for the United States House of Representatives to 50 copies.

As chairman of the Joint Committee on Printing, I have been working to cut wasteful printing, and the U.S. Code is a prime example of what needs to be cut. Every 6 years, the United States Code is reprinted to incorporate new statutory changes.

Currently, the 2012 edition of the U.S. Code is slated to be printed by GPO in fiscal year 2013. However, the printing and production of the Code takes anywhere from 14 to 16 months, guaranteeing that the Code is outdated before it even is in print.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would reduce the House's allotment from 213 to 50 copies. This reduction will ensure the long-term preservation of hard copies in the House, while freeing up over $369,000 for FY2013, money that would be better spent modernizing and improving access to legislative information, including the Code.

The printed copies of the U.S. Code in the House are used less each day because of increasingly available, more up-to-date electronic alternatives. This amendment is a simple overdue reduction in unnecessary printing.

I want to thank Chairman Lungren, as well as the appropriators, for their support of these efforts; and I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Well, there's certainly an assessment of the number of copies and the need and each agency that controls those and gets those. And we believe that on the distribution of those copies, as you look at it, that those agencies that get them, which include 43 copies to House Leg Counsel, 48 copies to House Law Revision Counsel, 13 copies to the House Committee on Appropriations, the House Legislative Resource Center receives four copies, House Parliamentarian receives three, and then the list goes on from there as to how we have those.

I certainly do believe that the House Committee on Appropriations, for example, is not going to need 13 full copies for those. Those are things that, even going back to law school days, you learn how to share the available copies.

I will certainly yield to the gentleman.

Well, under the amendment we do not determine how many copies each will get. If we do a pro rata reduction in the numbers that go to each one, I think we could come to an agreement as to what those numbers will be.

Thank you, sir.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take note of the 25th anniversary of the Montgomery GI Bill on June 1, and to share with my colleagues that this landmark legislation continues to pay dividends in strengthening our all-volunteer military and providing far-reaching educational opportunities for so many Americans.

I'm also proud to note that the author of this GI Bill was G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery of Mississippi. He served the Third Congressional District from 1967 1997, the same congressional district that I'm so honored to represent today. Sonny was chairman of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee for 14 years and a senior Member of the House Armed Services Committee. He understood military and veterans issues and worked tirelessly in support of a strong national defense and the men and women who served our great Nation.

All across central Mississippi, one can find many tributes to Sonny. The VA Medical Center in Jackson bears his name, as does the G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery National Guard Complex in his hometown of Meridian, Mississippi.

Another facility that deserves mention is the G.V. ``Sonny'' Montgomery Center for America's Veterans at his alma mater, Mississippi State University. The professionals at the center have won national praise for their work in helping veterans, dependents, and family members transition from military life to the classroom, including administering benefits for the GI Bill. Their efforts enhanced Sonny's legacy as the champion for military and veterans causes. His 35-year background as a World War II veteran and Korean war veteran, and as a retired major general in the Mississippi National Guard, gave Sonny a unique perspective for the leadership role he played in Congress on national security and veterans issues.

The United States abolished the military draft in 1973, and by the late 1970s, the success of the all-volunteer force was in peril because the service branches had difficulty recruiting quality individuals. One high-ranking U.S. Army official referred to it as a ``hollow army'' and decried the need for help in crafting a plan to boost enlistments.

As chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Sonny recognized these needs and proposed a cost-effective education incentive that would be popular with college-age youth. Sonny's vision won high praise, with one admiral saying it ``reversed expectations of failure and planted the promise of success'' in our post-Vietnam era military.

One official at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point wrote:

Transitioning to the all-volunteer force was the most

important change the Army made since World War II. The

Montgomery GI Bill was the policy vehicle that allowed this

to happen.

I should also note that the law made National Guard and Reserve personnel eligible for educational benefits for the first time in history. It reflected Sonny's understanding of the importance of our reserve components and our national defense picture. The role of our Guard and Reserve today is even stronger, and I'm confident that the Montgomery GI Bill has been key to that success.

Over the past quarter century, more than 2.6 million veterans have used the Montgomery GI Bill. It has made a difference in the lives of the men and women who have pursued higher educational opportunities that otherwise might not have been available. It is also one of the foundations upon which our military continues to stand as the greatest military power in history.

Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of my amendment, numbered 35, to the National Defense Authorization Act. This straight forward amendment requests a review and study by the Secretary of the Air Force on the decision to cancel or consolidate the Air National Guard Component Numbered Air Force Augmentation Force in Fiscal Year 2013.

This Air National Guard Augmentation Force enhances Active Duty Air and Space Operations Centers, or AOCs, across the Continental U.S. and across the globe on a regular basis. They support each AOC's respective mission and provide a rapid and familiar response to ensure mission success. Many AOCs have stated bluntly that their work would be greatly degraded if their Augmentation Force went away.

This amendment quite simply requests a review of the United States Air Force's decision to consolidate and cancel some of these Groups in the FY13 budget to ensure this decision is indeed cost effective and does not harm national security. The Air Force's Total Force Integration Phase IV Memo recognized the need for additional augmentation units, I now question how and if that need has subsided, and if it has, what has diminished it. I would like to thank our troops at home and abroad for their service in keeping this country safe. I would also like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee for their hard work on this year's Defense Authorization bill.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 105) authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall in the Capitol Visitor Center for an event to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members

have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 105, authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall on June 24 to celebrate the birthday of King Kamehameha, a legendary figure in Hawaiian history and culture.

On June 11, the people of Hawaii will celebrate the 96th annual Kamehameha Day, commemorating the life of Kamehameha the Great, who between 1795 and 1810 unified the islands into the kingdom of Hawaii. Known for being a fierce warrior who fought for unity and independence, King Kamehameha was highly regarded for ruling with fairness and compassion. His law, known as the Law of the Splintered Paddle, specifically protected civilians in wartime and is today a model for human rights throughout the world.

A statue of King Kamehameha graces the Capitol Visitor Center as part of the National Statuary Hall Collection. In adopting the resolution, we will authorize the use of this space for the celebration of his life and accomplishments.

I thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa) for introducing this concurrent resolution, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have any further requests for time, and I am prepared to close.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the work that Taylor Townsend, a 19-year-old Mississippian and the reigning Miss Mississippi College, is doing to eradicate human trafficking.

Taylor is passionate about the worldwide problem of human trafficking, which has lured millions of people into forced labor. Taylor Townsend is lending her support for the Blue Heart Campaign to bring awareness to human trafficking and the exploitation of people, especially children and teenagers.

In addition to her work in building awareness worldwide with the Blue Heart Campaign, Taylor Townsend has been offering her support in the great State of Mississippi. She has promoted the passage of two bills pending before the Mississippi Legislature and is involved in educational efforts bringing awareness to Mississippians.

Mr. Speaker, young people like Taylor Townsend who volunteer their time to help make our country and world a better place should be applauded. They should give us great hope for the future.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in an effort to create American jobs and move energy supply from a friendly trading partner to the United States gulf coast, the House Energy and Commerce Committee favorably reported H.R. 3548 to the full House. H.R. 3548, the North American Energy Access Act, would end a waiting game that has lasted for over 3 years by pushing forward approval of the Keystone XL pipeline.

In his State of the Union speech 2 weeks ago, the President promised to significantly expand production of oil and natural gas from offshore and onshore public lands.

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, he never mentioned his decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline.

While the President's comments about expanding oil and gas production in the U.S. were welcome news to many, I'm not sure how many people took his pledge seriously given his decision on Keystone XL. I am hopeful that the President will follow through on expanding production. I just wish he would have helped our country reduce our dependence on Middle Eastern oil while creating tens of thousands of jobs here in America by approving the pipeline application.

The President's excuse for not approving the pipeline application was that he didn't have enough time. Radical environmentalists say that tar sands crude is the dirtiest of all, and they talk as if that's something foreign, something new. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point your attention to a Friday, February 3, 2012 article on the front page of the National Journal, an article that I believe shows the fallacies in the arguments against the pipeline. The article states that ``despite environmental opposition, the Obama administration has approved a controversial oil-sands pipeline.''

The article refers to an oil-sands pipeline approved by the administration over 2 years ago. On August 20, 2009, Secretary of State Clinton approved a 1,000-mile pipeline with the capacity to carry 800,000 barrels of oil from Canada's oil sands to Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, if a pipeline that closely mirrors that of the proposed Keystone XL was good enough for the President in August of 2009, why is the Keystone XL pipeline not good enough for him in an election year? If time and the environment were reasons to deny Keystone XL in January 2012, they should have had the same reasons to deny the Canada- Wisconsin pipeline in 2009.

Keystone XL is a shovel-ready construction project that doesn't need a stimulus bill to get it started. Estimates show that the project could create 20,000 construction jobs immediately and could transport more than 1 million barrels of oil per day from Canada and the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana to gulf coast refineries.

With the ability to transport that amount of friendly oil from our largest trading partner and neighbor to the north, Canada, as well as domestic oil, and with the ability to create an additional estimated 100,000 jobs over the lifetime of the pipeline, it's no wonder why the American public supports Keystone XL. At a time when unemployment and prices at the pump are high and new predictions say gasoline could top $4 this year, it's no wonder that the American public was disappointed in the President's decision.

In a recent installment of the United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection poll, Americans surveyed were asked: Supporters of the pipeline say it will ease America's dependence on Mideast oil and create jobs. Opponents fear the environmental impact of building a pipeline. What about you--do you support or oppose building the Keystone XL pipeline? Sixty-four percent of the respondents favored the construction of Keystone XL and only 22 percent were opposed.

Mr. Speaker, Keystone XL makes sense. It means jobs, energy security, and satisfaction for the American public. The President made a political decision to pander to his extreme environmentalist supporters in a campaign year instead of listening to the majority of the American public, and that was unfortunate.

I think that House Republicans are making it well known that the fight for Keystone XL is not over. Support in the House to move the pipeline forward has been bipartisan, very public, and very well received by the American people. As of yesterday, that support has produced a bill to push Keystone XL forward. I look forward to continuing my commitment to jobs, energy security, and the building of the Keystone XL pipeline.

I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to speak on behalf of National Marriage Week. What a special time it is for us. I will also say what an inspiration you and your wife are to my wife and myself on the way that you live that marriage.

As we look and see how our society is today and as we see the prevalence of divorce and the breakdown of the family, I think it's very fitting that we talk for a moment about the importance of marriage and what it means in our lives. While it is not attainable for some family situations or some situations, it should always be our goal to keep that family unit together and to hold that bedrock of our society together.

My experience with marriage came from watching my mom and dad. My dad was a gunner in a B-17 in World War II. He came right after World War II to Columbus Air Force Base, which is in Congressman Nunnelee's district, and met my mother at a dance when she came down from Lackey, Mississippi, outside Aberdeen. From that point forward, my dad decided he would move his allegiance from Oklahoma to the State of Mississippi.

I watched that marriage through my life. While no marriage is always easy or trouble free, they stuck together through thick and thin. I know, for us--my dad, my late father, being a petroleum engineer--we transferred quite often from kindergarten through the 12th grade. I was in 10 different schools in four different States--and we actually spent another summer in a fifth State--but Mississippi was always home. That bond that we had was very special because, as long as Mom and Dad and my brother and I were together, there was that protection, that safety that came from that; and how I watched them as they handled things that came up in their life inspired me.

Then in that last move that we had from the State of California back to Mississippi, I wound up in a high school in the 10th grade with a great friend of mine whose conduct and behavior indirectly led me to accept Jesus Christ as my savior at the end of my 10th grade year. He got me going to his church, and it was there that I spotted this beautiful young lady; but I had to wait until she broke up with this boyfriend, and then I moved in for the kill.

So I started dating my wife Sidney when she was 15 and I was 17. We dated 5\1/2\ years before we got married. We would have gotten married sooner but we were afraid to stay by ourselves, so we had to wait just a little while. But we've now been married 32 years. And I can tell you that I can't imagine not being married to Sidney.

As I look and we talk about National Marriage Week, and you look at the joys and the troubles that you go through in life--and for us, part of that was having a son with special needs. Our son Livingston has Fragile X Syndrome, and the difficulty of going through that with him is something I could have never done without that bond of marriage and that strength that came not only from the Lord but from my relationship with my wife. We've been blessed with our son Livingston, what a wonderful son, and our daughter Maggie. And having that family together and them having us together, I think, helps us as we build our society and we move forward.

I want to commend the gentleman from Mississippi for having this event today where we can come and speak on that. And I want you to know that I'm a very smart husband too because I'm giving this speech, wearing the tie that my wife gave me for Valentine's Day last year. So hopefully that will score points.

But I want to say, as we look at this, let's try to encourage people that are going through difficulties in their marriage to stay together, to keep that family together. And this is something that we can build on that will benefit our society.

Madam Speaker, as a member of the Committee on House Administration, I rise in support of H. Res. 496, the 2012 committee funding resolution, with full knowledge of the impact the reduced funding levels contained in this measure will have on the committee system.

For example, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, on which I also serve, stated during the day-long hearing on this resolution that his committee would not be able to hold valuable field hearings during 2012 and would have to restrict other committee activities. More severe still, more than one ranking member stated that committee staff would have to be laid off as a result of the funding reductions contained in the resolution. This is unfortunate, but many American families have faced reduced activities and layoffs as a result of the current economic times, and Congress cannot exempt itself from such pain.

This resolution will roll back committee funding to pre-2007 levels and is, I think, a necessary action as we cut spending throughout the Federal budget. The committee went to considerable lengths to be fair both to all the chairmen but also to the minority with no change made to the traditional funding split between the majority and minority. This resolution will mean that the current Congress will spend almost 10 percent less than the previous Congress did. It requires every Member of this body, in a nonpartisan manner, to participate in the austerity that the American people and the rest of their government are experiencing.

I commend Chairman Lungren for his work on this resolution, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I am deeply disappointed by President Obama's decision to deny TransCanada's application to build the Keystone XL pipeline. I know that many of my colleagues in the House, Members of the Senate, and citizens across this country share my disappointment and near disbelief. I say ``near'' disbelief rather than ``complete'' because while an approval of the application made sense to so many, I had a feeling that the President would continue down a path of making political decisions instead of decisions based on merit and what is best for our country, much like the knee-jerk reaction and decision to shut down drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after the Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 20, 2010.

Instead of shutting down the negligent parties involved in the explosion, the President shut down an entire industry for 6 months, and then it took almost another 6 months before the first permit was issued--almost a 1-year delay that cost thousands of families their jobs. While the President may talk about energy independence, I question whether he understands the role that oil plays in our economy and will continue to play in our Nation's energy portfolio. Even worse would be if he does understand and is just making political decisions.

The application for Keystone XL has been pending for over 3 years; and even though history shows that these types of applications generally take 18 months to approve, the President said that a February 21, 2012, deadline imposed by Congress did not give him enough time to properly review the application. The Keystone XL application

was pending for twice as long as a normal application. The President's argument about not having enough time to make a decision to approve the project is weak, at best. The application was filed more than 3 years ago, and a final decision on whether to let the pipeline go forward was long, long overdue.

Unfortunately, I believe the wrong decision has been made. And if he didn't want to approve it for environmental reasons, I wonder if thought was given to the fact that China wants the oil if the United States does not get it, and that means putting the oil on tankers, which we know would have a much more negative impact on the environment than pipelines.

Mr. Speaker, the United States needs the XL Keystone pipeline. In his first term in office, the President has loosely talked about the need for energy independence. Keystone XL could help provide the United States with the certainty of almost a million barrels of oil a day, and that oil comes from our friend and largest trading partner, Canada, not the Middle East. At a time when the price at the pump continues to fluctuate--in part due to uncertainty in the Middle East--I cannot understand how the President justified denying the transport of friendly Canadian oil to our gulf coast refineries.

When the President took office in January 2009, the average cost of a gallon of gas was $1.83. On January 23, 2012, AAA reports that the current average is $3.83 per gallon. The record for the highest annual average price for a gallon of gasoline ever in our Nation's history was set in 2011. A major factor in recent high prices is continued political tension in the Middle East and North Africa. These events have threatened or disrupted huge quantities of oil, causing great fear among investors. It is beyond evident that America needs relief.

The President has struggled with turning the economy around since taking office 3 years ago, and his speeches often center on the subject of jobs. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the President realizes that his denial of the Keystone XL application is costing our country tens of thousands of jobs. An analysis by the Perryman Group, an economic consultant in Texas, has demonstrated the tremendous job-creating potential of this project. It is the reason that six major labor unions have signed project labor agreements to construct the pipeline. These are good-paying American jobs that union members are eager to fill. However, instead of issuing the necessary permits to begin construction of the pipeline and put Americans to work, the administration drags its feet for over 3 years and at the end of that time denied an estimated 120,000 Americans jobs to provide a way to support their families.

Pro-business groups like Americans for Prosperity and the Chamber of Commerce support Keystone XL as a way to give a much-needed boost to the economy. Pro-labor groups support Keystone XL because they know it will create jobs. Americans across the country asked President Obama to approve this project. They realized its importance but were clearly ignored.

The Keystone XL pipeline is just one example of how House Republicans have been working to promote job creation without the need for ``stimulus'' money. While the President decided to pander to his extreme environmentalist supporters in a campaign year instead of keeping the best interests of the American people at heart, I do not believe that this battle is over.

Our country needs the pipeline. We need these jobs. We need cheaper gas at the pumps, and I'm committed to working towards alternative ways to get it back.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The President has spent a lot of time during the last 3 months traveling around the country these many months demanding that Congress put aside party differences and pass the bill, referring to his $447 billion so-called jobs bill. But if the President were to get off the campaign trail and focus on the facts, he would realize that House Republicans have been advancing a pro-growth agenda that creates jobs without expanding the Federal Government's role.

The House of Representatives has voted numerous times this year in the 112th Congress to increase American oil production, which would put Americans back to work, reduce our country's dependence upon foreign oil, and lower prices at the pump. And I ask you to think back to when the President took office. The average price for a gallon of gas in this country was $1.83. We can only barely remember such a time. These are steps that we can take that can turn that around.

Those bills that we did pass out of the House would speed up the permitting process for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct more offshore oil and gas leases, direct the Department of the Interior to proceed with exploration and production in the areas estimated to contain the most oil and gas, and eliminate this administration's bureaucratic delays that have stalled offshore energy production in the Outer Continental Shelf.

Further, the House has voted multiple times to push for a final decision on the Keystone XL pipeline. The Keystone XL pipeline application was filed more than 3 years ago, and a final decision on whether to let the pipeline go forward is long, long overdue.

In his first term in office, the President has talked about the need for energy independence. Keystone XL could help provide the United States with the certainty of almost a million barrels of oil a day; and that oil comes from our friends and largest trading partner, Canada, not the Middle East.

At a time when the President has tasked three aircraft carriers and strike groups with protecting the Strait of Hormuz, wouldn't approving this new source of friendly oil be just good, plain common sense.

The President has struggled with turning the economy around since taking office 3 years ago, and his speeches often center on the subject of jobs. If approved today, the Keystone XL project would create 20,000 construction jobs and an estimated 100,000 indirect jobs during the life of its operation for Americans who desperately need them.

Look at these 20,000 jobs that are there that are held up. You know, I think back to my late father. His first job as a petroleum engineer was in Tinsley Field in Yazoo County, Mississippi. Those jobs matter to families. It's time to move forward and approve this.

Instead of issuing the necessary permits to begin construction of the pipeline and putting American families and Americans to work, the administration is in the third year, almost 4 years now, of dragging its feet through bureaucratic delays and indecision. It can only be for political reasons.

Pro-business groups like Americans for Prosperity and the Chamber of Commerce are supporting Keystone XL to give a much needed boost to the economy. Even pro-labor groups are supporting Keystone XL because they know it will create jobs. Americans across the country are asking this President to approve this project. They realize its importance, and they deserve to be answered.

The Keystone XL pipeline is just one example of how House Republicans have been working to promote job creation without the need for stimulus money. Today it is the most pressing. Every day that the President kicks the can down the road is another day without the jobs, and another day without the relief from Middle Eastern oil, and another day that Americans should be asking this administration and this White House, Where are the jobs?

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise today in support of H. Res. 497, providing for the placement of a statue or bust of Sir Winston Churchill in the United States Capitol.

Mr. Speaker, much has been said and written about Winston Churchill. Most prominently, he served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1940 through 1945 and again from 1951 through 1955. But he was so much more.

During the 20th century's darkest hour, Winston Churchill warned of the approaching evil, stood tall when it arrived, and inspired his citizens and ours, and liberty-loving people around the world, to fight, to persevere, and to never surrender before victory was assured.

He knew that the long road of our humanity-affirming progress could not end and was not going to end in defeat to tyranny.

Mr. Speaker, we are, in fact, one week away, as has been said, from the 70th anniversary of Churchill's address to a joint session of Congress. On December 26, 1941, with our Nation still in shock after the attack on Pearl Harbor and simultaneous defeats and setbacks across the Pacific, and more than 2 long years since the invasion of Poland, Prime Minister Churchill, as this resolution reminds us, said: ``Sure I am that this day--now we are the masters of our fate, that the task which has been set us is not above our strength, that its pains and toils are not beyond our endurance. As long as we have faith in our cause and an unconquerable willpower, salvation will not be denied us.''

Mr. Speaker, World War II was a cataclysmic conflict which engulfed the world in 6 long and bloody years and took approximately 60 million lives.

Whole continents were engulfed in flames. Europe as we knew it was overrun. Poland, Belgium, France, Italy, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Greece, and many others all were conquered by the Nazi inferno, until only Britain stood alone. And in those days, Churchill, his people, the heroic Royal Air Force, and the courage summoned from the depths of their character rose to meet the evil face to face.

Mr. Speaker, Winston Churchill was made an Honorary Citizen of the United States by an act of Congress in 1963. He was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in 1969. His strength, fortitude, and resolve have stood, and will forever stand, the test off time; and his life and example will be one of those guiding lights to which we always look in troublesome days, whenever they should appear.

It is more than appropriate to have a statue or bust of Sir Winston Churchill in our great Capitol, and I support H. Res. 497.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 477, I call up the bill (H.R. 3463) to reduce Federal spending and the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential election campaigns and party conventions and by terminating the Election Assistance Commission, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to include materials on H.R. 3463.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

To begin, I would like to thank the chairman of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), for his continued assistance in ensuring these important matters are considered by the House. He has been a helpful partner.

Mr. Speaker, we live in uncertain times--with job creation stifled by crushing debt. But there are two things I am certain of: the necessity of cutting unnecessary spending and the fact that H.R. 3463 is a simple and straightforward way to do just that. H.R. 3463 cuts unnecessary spending in two ways:

First, it ends the taxpayer financing of Presidential election campaigns and party conventions, a program growing

less and less popular for both taxpayers and candidates. Second, H.R. 3463 terminates the Election Assistance Commission, an obsolete government agency originally intended to sunset in 2005.

Every Federal program, including these, is there because someone thinks it is a good idea; but if we do not eliminate some programs, then a $15 trillion debt will just be the starting point of our decline into a European-style fiscal crisis. Everyone talks about tough choices, and we have to make them. Frankly, these choices aren't even very tough. They are about as easy as we're going to find.

Since 1976 American taxpayers have spent $1.5 billion in funding Presidential primary campaigns, Presidential election campaigns, and national party conventions. My colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) has been a leader in trying to end those campaign subsidies, and I am pleased to work with him today to continue that effort.

When the taxpayer financing of political campaigns and conventions was adopted, proponents said it would improve the public's trust in their government, clean up our politics, and increase the competitiveness of political campaigns. Sadly, it has failed on all counts. Now we find that more and more candidates are opting out of the system altogether. The Federal Election Commission has just this week confirmed that no Presidential candidate to date has opted to participate for the 2012 election.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about eliminating a program that literally no candidate is currently using or preparing to use at this point. That includes President Obama, who in 2008 famously became the first Presidential candidate ever to decline to participate in both the primary and general election phases of the program.

It's not just the candidates who don't like it. As this chart indicates, support from Americans overall is dramatically low for this program. Since peaking in 1980, the percentage of taxpayers opting to participate has declined from a high of 28.7 percent to 7 percent.

It's obviously something that needs to be done away with. That means that 93 percent of American taxpayers choose not to participate. They refuse to subsidize political campaigns. Who can blame them? It's bad enough that they have to watch campaign commercials, but they shouldn't have to pay for them with taxpayer dollars as well. The money designated by a check-off on tax returns is diverted from those taxpayers' payments into this program so that every other taxpayer has to make up the difference in revenue to the Treasury. The 93 percent of taxpayers who do not participate have to make up for the money spent by the current 7 percent who do.

Mr. Speaker, eliminating this system will save taxpayers an estimated $447 million over 5 years and will immediately return nearly $200 million to the Treasury. This is sensible and long overdue.

Also long overdue is the elimination of the Election Assistance Commission. The EAC, created in 2002, as this chart indicates, was expected to sunset in 2005. Instead, as you see on the chart, despite its dwindling services, Mr. Speaker, this agency has more than doubled its employee size in 3 years. This is clearly an abuse of what should have taken place.

The EAC was established for a noble purpose: to allocate Federal grants for State voting systems upgrades, to conduct research, and to test and certify voting equipment. Aside from the certification services, which can be carried out by another agency, the EAC has fulfilled its purpose.

Over $3 billion has been sent to States over the years to help them modernize their voting equipment. Now, the EAC has allocated all of its remaining election grants and even zeroed out its request for additional grant funds in its last three annual budget requests.

The National Association of Secretaries of State, a bipartisan group, the direct beneficiary of the EAC's dwindling services, has passed not one but two resolutions calling for the EAC's dissolution. As this chart indicates, the EAC's FY12 budget request devotes 51.7 percent of its budget to management and overhead costs--more than half. Under this plan, the agency would use $5.4 million to manage programs totaling $3.5 million.

This bill would transfer the EAC's remaining valuable service, its voting system testing and certification program, to an existing agency instead of paying the overhead costs of a complete agency just to operate that program. Like its predecessor bill, H.R. 672, this bill maintains an advisory system to give State and local election officials input into the testing and certification program.

Mr. Speaker, since December of 2010, the Election Assistance Commission has not had a quorum. That means it has not been able to make policy decisions requiring approval by the Commissioners. Has anyone even noticed? Compared to the real crises facing our country, has there been harm caused to justify keeping an obsolete agency?

The EAC is not merely obsolete, it's also wasteful. I have spoken to this House before about the two hiring discrimination lawsuits against the EAC. Unfortunately, the more time that passes, the more problems come to light. Just recently we learned that a former EAC Commissioner, who continued serving for a year after the end of the term and then resigned, has been collecting unemployment benefits. Neither the Commissioner's resignation letter nor any facts that we know of indicate the departure was anything other than voluntary.

When we have millions of people in this country struggling to make ends meet, how can a senior government official who leaves a job voluntarily collect unemployment benefits? When we have an agency that is not needed and produces scandal after scandal, misperformance after misperformance, it is time for this agency to go.

According to the CBO, dissolving the EAC will save taxpayers $33 million over the next 5 years.

Mr. Speaker, we have a $15 trillion debt. We have to start somewhere. We now have annual deficits over a trillion dollars. H.R. 3463 eliminates one government program that virtually no one uses and shuts down an agency that has completed the task that it was assigned. Amazingly, we've had proposals not to shrink these programs but to expand them. Only in Washington is the answer to dysfunction expansion.

This bill will not cure all of the problems that we have on its own, but it is one of many steps we are going to have to take; otherwise, we will sink deeper and deeper into debt and trap our children and our grandchildren down into a downward spiral. Today is the time to act, and this agency and this program are the place to start.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3463, and I reserve the balance of my time.

House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology,

Washington, DC, November 30, 2011.

Hon. Daniel E. Lungren,

Chairman, Committee on House Administration, Longworth House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Lungren: I am writing to you concerning the

jurisdictional interest of the Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology in H.R. 3463 (to reduce Federal spending and

the deficit by terminating taxpayer financing of presidential

election campaigns and party conventions and by terminating

the Election Assistance Commission) introduced on November

17, 2011.

I recognize and appreciate your desire to bring this

legislation before the House of Representatives in an

expeditious manner, and accordingly, I will waive further

consideration of this bill in Committee, notwithstanding any

provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee

on Science, Space, and Technology. This waiver, of course, is

conditional upon our mutual understanding that agreeing to

waive consideration of this bill should not be construed as

waiving, reducing, or affecting the jurisdiction of the

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Additionally,

the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology expressly

reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provision

within its jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference

that may be convened on this, or any similar legislation. I

ask for your commitment to support any request by the

Committee for conferees on H.R. 3463 as well as any similar

or related legislation.

I ask that a copy of this letter and your response be

placed in the Congressional Record during consideration of

H.R. 3463 on the House floor.

I look forward to working with you on matters of mutual

concern.

Sincerely,

Ralph M. Hall,

Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is clear that what has happened here is that there has been no response to many of the allegations of mismanagement that we've heard so far. It is clear from the things that have happened that the EAC, in particular, it is time for this to come to a conclusion. It is an agency whose average salary for its employees--and the employee size has more than doubled since 2007--the average salary is $106,000 for this agency. Ronald Reagan said that the closest thing on earth to eternal life is a temporary government program. This was supposed to last for a period of 3 years.

The National Association of Secretaries of State in 2005 did a resolution, a bipartisan group, they did a resolution saying bring this to an end. They renewed that resolution again in 2010, and yet it remains. If we cannot get rid of an agency like the EAC, then we're never going to be able to get rid of anything up here.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is amazing that there is a reference to the need that we need to focus on jobs instead of doing something like this. If that's the case, we've passed about 25 bills this year out of the Republican-led House that dealt with jobs and dealt with the economy. We have done our job on that, and now they're sitting over in the Senate who knows where or why awaiting action. So we have been doing those things, the tough decisions, the things that will create jobs if the Senate and the White House would join with us on those things. So that is simply not accurate to say that we haven't been focusing on jobs because we have done that since we started this year, and we will continue to do so and encourage and urge our colleagues over in the Senate to bring these matters up. They include things that will help on overburdensome EPA regs, with things that will deal with permitting and drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and things that will have a direct impact on our economy and jobs.

You know, it is clear, particularly on the EAC, which was created in 2002 after HAVA, the Help America Vote Act, after the Bush-Gore recount so that we wouldn't have another hanging chad or butterfly ballot situation, and this agency administered over $3 billion worth of grants to the States for machines. When it was passed, it was designed to be a 3-year agency and program. We're 9 years into this. And instead of trying to say, okay, and we showed the chart a minute ago with $5.4 million worth of management costs, and yet only a little over $3 million in program costs. And the grants for the machines, Mr. Speaker, are now gone and they are not there.

We have the letter from the National Association of Secretaries of State which restates their position on the resolution to eliminate the EAC done in 2005, and again in 2010. Again on the EAC, we have reports from different agencies. We have an IG report criticizing the management practices of the EAC. This report was done in March of 2010.

We have a report from the EAC's financial records back in November of 2008 which I dealt with when I first got on the Committee on House Administration in early 2009. This report is an audit of the Election Assistance Commission fiscal year 2008 financial statements. The records were so mismanaged, this agency that the other side wants to keep instead of trying to make us more efficient, it was so bad that the agency couldn't be audited. The records were too bad to tell them how bad it was. So that lengthy report is available to anyone who cares to read it.

Then we have a report from the Office of Special Counsel that was done in 2009. The Office of Special Counsel talks about having to settle a political discrimination case. An agency that is supposed to talk about fairness and helping in elections themselves get sued for political discrimination. And one of those that created that problem is the one that voluntarily resigned and received unemployment benefits for a voluntary resignation.

We have the organizational chart that shows that the EAC included a special assistant to a vacant position. I can go on and on, Mr. Speaker, on the mismanagement of the EAC. It is clearly time to say-- and I understand that there are some things that we need to keep. We are saying that the essential functions of this group, send them over to the FEC, and we can take care of those situations on testing and certification, make the process more efficient, and we'll save money for the taxpayers.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a distinguished member of the Appropriations and Budget Committees, who also has been heavily involved in this matter as a cosponsor and also has done great work on trying to eliminate and bring to an end the Presidential Election Fund.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Rokita), who is a distinguished member of the Committee on House Administration, a former secretary of state for the State of Indiana, and he has served as president of the National Association of Secretaries of State.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), the distinguished chairman of the House Administration Committee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of the House Administration Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee and a former judge, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that we haven't done anything about jobs. Here we have a card that lists 25 different bills that we've passed which help manufacturing, the economy, energy--bills that are going to be great job creators. Yet the complaint has been that the EAC is not dealing with those issues.

Members on the other side of the aisle who said that this is not appropriate and that it's going to disenfranchise voters should remember they all voted for this in 2002 when it had its 3-year provision to sunset after that. So I think that argument will not fail. In addition, the EAC has no regulatory or enforcement authority.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that an argument could be made that in any way the elimination of the EAC would result in disenfranchising any voter. We all believe that every person who should vote, that needs to vote, that's allowed to vote, that wants to vote should be allowed to do so.

I would like to point out that all of those that are speaking in opposition that were here in 2002 when HAVA passed voted for HAVA. And in HAVA, it contained the provision that created the EAC, which was only supposed to last for 3 years. This is not a complicated lift to do away with this. Does that mean when they voted for this in 2002 that they were trying to disenfranchise voters? Obviously not. In no way is this intended to do anything but clean up an agency that has an average employee salary of $106,000 a year, has been sued for political discrimination, problems with the military, an agency that cannot be corrected but needs to be eliminated.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this motion to recommit and to support this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 588, legislation that I introduced to redesignate the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge as the Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge. This legislation is a companion bill to S. 266, introduced by Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran, which passed the Senate on February 17, 2011. I want to thank Senator Cochran for his leadership on this and many other conservation matters.

H.R. 588 honors Mr. Sam D. Hamilton, a lifetime conservationist and a great man who spent 30 years at the Fish and Wildlife Service, ultimately rising to Director in 2009.

Established in 1940, the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge consists of 48,000 acres in east-central Mississippi. Approximately 170,000 people visit the refuge annually and enjoy hunting, fishing, hiking, and other outdoor and recreational activities.

Mr. Hamilton had a long and personal history with the refuge. A native of Starkville, Mississippi, he recalled during his confirmation testimony that he caught his first fish at the refuge at the age of 5 and began his conservation career there as an employee at age 15. Sam called the refuge system the ``finest collection of public lands and waters dedicated to fish and wildlife conservation in the world.''

Upon graduating from Mississippi State University, Sam started a career that spanned 30 years at the Fish and Wildlife Service. On September 1, 2009, Sam Hamilton was sworn in as the 15th Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Regrettably, Sam passed away on February 20, 2010. Honoring Sam by renaming the refuge would be a tribute to his remarkable career and his commitment to conservation. The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation recently provided a grant to the Friends of Noxubee Refuge that will allow the name change to occur without the Federal Government's incurring these costs.

I would also like to thank Chairman Hastings and Subcommittee Chairman Fleming for their support and look forward to working with them to ensure this legislation is signed into law to remember a man who devoted his life and career to the ideals formed during his early days at the Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge.